Apple opposes judge's order to hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone

Completely agree with Tim Cook. The issue isn't just this one phone. The code to do this for this one phone could be exploited to everyone's phone.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/index.html

This:

 

I’m with Tim Cook and Apple as well. This could set up to be a landmark legal fight over personal privacy. Protecting customer privacy is a good business strategy for Apple, of course, but they have been consistent on this point for quite a while. It helps that they don’t make a living off mining customer data for advertising revenue like some of their competitors.

Let’s see what we hear in the coming days from Google and Microsoft on this point. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has posted a response that says nothing of substance.

 

I don't know, I don't think this is as cut and dried as yes or no. I'm not for the George Orwell "Big Brother' reply that the government needs to know everything, but then again I don't think they need to know nothing. Just think if this applied to anyone you personally know or love, and if the results determined if it could or could not occur again. If what they are looking for can help them determine if this will help them from allowing this to occur again, then ok. I think this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis and whether it can help this from occurring again. But just like everyone else, I don't want this to be an every event occurrence and something that will be an outlet for the government or anyone else to rely on. treading on very delicate ground...

 

I'm surprised the NSA hasn't developed a program to do this already.

Maybe they have, and they felt it was just easier and less risky for Apple to do this.

87, I think if this were just applicable to this phone in this case, it wouldn't be an issue at all. But according to Cook, who I believe and makes a logical claim, the program to do this for this one phone will affect every phone...that's the rub.

 

I think the only way that the NSA/FBI could get away with creating a back door exploit for data on mobile phones would be to use hackers to create the exploit, which would send ripples through the industry about what was going down. Hence, the need to ask Apple to do it for them and not risk the information getting leaked to the press when they got caught.

When you think about it, it definitely sounds like something a liberal administration would do in order to save face. Instead of secretly just going ahead with a program to find out what's behind the locked door on everyone's phones, like Nixon might do, you play the "at least we're asking permission" card and hope something sticks.

 

Not sure what to think given the differences in the revisions of the various generations of the Iphone. There was an article yesterday that said Apple has given the code or whatever to New York upwards of 70 times so it would not be earth shattering to do it now. The question is will the corporate phone which the public entity owns, used by the now dead terrorist, be able to be hacked like the revisions that were hacked 70 times before?

I don't see a privacy issue since the entity that actually owns the phone has reportedly agreed to let it be opened to help the Feds. But can or will Apple do it?

 

I thought the owner of this particular iPhone is the dead terrorist in the San Bernardino case.

 

that may be. I thought I read it was his work cell.(public entity of San Bernadino)

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/judge-apple-us-hack-san-bernardino-killers-phone-36988850

 

Instead of apple showing them how to hack phone why can't they give phone to Apple and Apple hack it, give them hard copy of data and be done with it? That way they get information and no one gets the 'back door' access. What is my simpleton mind missing here?

 

I thought about that too. I just assumed it was too simple a solution to not have been proposed and it must have been rejected by the FBI.

 

Precedent.

 

If Apple capitulates to a US Court and the FBI, what is to stop them from having to potentially do the same in any other Country in which they do business? In other words, for those with no real problem about the Order, insert Russia or China into the discussion in place of US government or FBI and see if your opinion changes...

 

Unix geek summary of the case.

sudo is a program for Unix-like computer operating systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user, by default the superuser.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html
Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before, hmmmm

 

I'm not sure but here's what the article goes on to say:

“Even if [Homeland Security] agents did not have the defendant’s pass code, they would nevertheless have been able to obtain the records stored in the subject iPhone using specialized software,” the judge said. “Once the device is unlocked, all records in it can be accessed and copied.”

A government attorney affirmed that he was aware of the tool. However, it applied only to one update of version 8 of the iPhone operating system—specifically, 8.1.2. The government couldn’t unlock all iPhones, but just phones with that software running.

 

A court order to release data that one has in one's possession? Sure, I can see that.

A court order where the government says you should be forced to write a new program that doesn't currently exist, in order to break into data that one does not have possession of? No, that's crap.

 

Ars Technica article

 

Clarification on the "Apple has unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 times before" meme.

TechCrunch article: No, Apple Has Not Unlocked 70 iPhones For Law Enforcement

"Specifically, I keep seeing reports that Apple has unlocked “70 iPhones” for the government. And those reports argue that Apple is now refusing to do for the FBI what it has done many times before. This meme is completely inaccurate at best, and dangerous at worst.

There are two cases involving data requests by the government which are happening at the moment. There is a case in New York — in which Apple is trying really hard not to hand over customer information even though it has the tools to do so — and there is the case in California, where it is fighting an order from the FBI to intentionally weaken the security of a device to allow its passcode to be cracked by brute force. These are separate cases with separate things at stake.

The New York case involves an iPhone running iOS 7. On devices running iOS 7 and previous, Apple actually has the capability to extract data, including (at various stages in its encryption march) contacts, photos, calls and iMessages without unlocking the phones. That last bit is key, because in the previous cases where Apple has complied with legitimate government requests for information, this is the method it has used.

It has not unlocked these iPhones — it has extracted data that was accessible while they were still locked."

 

nice update. what if the owner of the phone wants to allow the Feds to access the phone with the help of Apple? Does the privacy on a corporate device of a former employee still remain if he is killed while performing a criminal act? Thus giving the corporate device back to the corporate entity owner? This is an interesting part to me whether Apple can un-encrypt or not, or whether they should be forced to do so or not.

 

I think he is right about Jobs, but would have preferred to hear it from him directly

 

I think so too. I recall seeing Jobs in an interview or maybe it was one of Apple’s product announcements, he was talking about privacy and said something like “we don’t want your persona data” — and I think he meant it.

I really don’t doubt Apple’s / Tim Cook’s sincerity about protecting customer privacy. But it is also a very clever way to strategically distance themselves from Google and Facebook and others who make their living on our personal info (browsing habits, purchase history, etc) so they can target advertising to us. Apple makes their money primarily on hardware so they can afford to take a more principled stand on privacy.

 

Bureaucrats aren't paid to think things through and come up with a solution that makes sense and addresses the problem. They are paid to find a way to turn a single issue into a massive redistribution of power into their hands. Usually, one that they saw on a spy show on TV last week and are convinced is a great idea and totally doable.

I noted the senator introducing the bill, and it's pretty evident that the subtle distinction between interfering with investigative efforts and not allowing unrestricted access to anyone and everyone is probably lost on most litigators.

 

Dennis Miller --

"Give the San Bernardino I-Phone to Hillary for a couple of days and then Trump can ask Putin for the data."

 

Brilliant!

 

This is not exactly the same issue, but it raises some of the same concerns.
And casts Apple/Cook in a different light.


".....Apple’s new role as a champion of digital privacy must be making the Chinese government smile. According to an article by the US news website Quartz, Cook’s intransigence apparently depends on geography.

Citing reports by Chinese daily Beijing News and the state-run People's Daily, the article claimed that Cook agreed in January 2015 to allow authorities in China to carry out “security checks” on all iPhones sold in the country to make sure the US had not installed any spyware. But, Apple has never confirmed or responded to the allegations.

The article reported that analysts believe Apple likely handed over its operating system source code as part of the agreement. If true, this would mean that the Chinese government knows how Apple’s software works, including its security system.

User data stored in China

Apple also decided in February 2015 to store local users’ personal data in China. The move was a gesture of good will towards Beijing that other companies like Google, for example, have always rejected for “security reasons”. This is because it is easier for China to request access to personal information that is under its jurisdiction.

But Apple has never given Beijing the means to hack an iPhone, which is exactly what Cook has accused the United States of seeking in what he described as “an unprecedented step that threatens the security of our customers”.

But Apple’s alleged behaviour in China has demonstrated that the company may be capable of granting a government – even one known for Internet censorship – access to users’ personal information if it’s within the company's best commercial interests."

http://www.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-privacy-hardball-with-fbi-but-not-china

 

I don't remember where I saw this or I would provide the link, but the claim was that user data being stored in China was not controversial because Apple's encryption keys remain in the U.S. Keeping user data near the users would make sense for performance reasons.

Of course they may be capable of it. Google and Microsoft and Facebook and others may very well be giving the Chinese government more latitude on this issue but I don't know if that has ever been demonstrated.

 

Here's the article I was thinking of.

New York Times: Apple Sees Value in Its Stand to Protect Security